[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Issue: DECLARE-MACROS
- From: Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 6 Jan 88 23:18 PST
I thought that while there were some objections to DECLARE-MACROS the proposal
recieved very strong endorsement from many members of the community. I thought
we needed to address the objections and resubmit it.
Does anyone else have any notes or recollection?
----- Begin Forwarded Messages -----
Received: from STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM (SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA) by
Xerox.COM ; 04 JAN 88 19:09:02 PST
Received: from EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 314856; Mon 4-Jan-88 22:08:36 EST
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 88 22:08 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: Re: New issue: FLET-DECLARATIONS
Date: 4 Jan 88 17:06 PST
I think we should presume in future cleanup issues that DECLARE-MACROS has
accepted. Your writeup sentence "This rule is required in order to permit
to expand into DECLARE, as noted above." should probably be changed.
Really? I had pretty well assumed that DECLARE-MACROS was being withdrawn,
so many people had surfaced who depend on macros expanding into declarations, so
that it would be a significant incompatible change. From a language cleanliness
point of view, I'd like macros not to expand into declarations, but from a
point of view I no longer care; at one point I had mistakenly claimed that this
a major source of slowness in our compiler, but that turned out not to be true.
It's related to a source of slowness, and fixing the slowness is made more
by the need to worry about macros expanding into declarations, but removing the
feature from the language really wouldn't help us very much. I was just
on that point.
----- End Forwarded Messages -----